I have a proposal for Congressman Paul Ryan.

In light of his continued dogged quest to stick it to our seniors with cuts to Medicare (raising the age), I have finally seen the light. He might be right. In examining the budget issues, the so-called defect crisis, etc for lo these many months and years now, I have come to the conclusion that belt-tightening is, in fact, in order. First, there is absolutely no way that our elected representatives can be considered employees of the Federal government, because they are not. They are elected representatives. Since they are not employees, I suggest we strip them of any benefits they may be (in fact, most certainly are claiming). I suggest they plan for their retirement with the advisor of their choosing, who can steer them to available plans in the open market. At 175k per year, I'm sure Mr. Ryan will be able to do a better job at planning for his senior years than just about anyone. Which brings me to my next suggestion: $175,000 per year really seems salty, if you ask me. Being that Congress is generally in session only about 3 days a week when they are even in session, it really boggles the mind when you break it down per hour. (I will forego any mention of evaluating the quality of the "work" performed, and pretend it is of at least average quality, enough to avoid termination if he were an actual employee). I say we build on Sen. Claire McGaskill's lead with the sequester legislation she introduced on the pay cuts, and extend it to the general deficit discussion. There must be a million ways our congress-critters have built a cushy life out of the "job" in Washington. Not having been there myself, there are probably others here who could add ides to the discussion. What do you all think? Cut their pay, dismantle their benefits and turn them loose to the open market?

2. I keep telling you guys...

The biggest reason our Congress sucks is because the pay is so low. We expect our congressmen to do million-dollar work then pay them less than a fifth that. We could pay the bunch of them a million a year for a little over half a billion, and that would convince the kind of people we need in there to step away from corporate America for a few years. The crew we have in there is either independently rich or equipped with an agenda.

Raise the pay to the point executives won't take an 80 percent pay cut to go into politics and good people will run.

5. Okay, how?

Let's pay them enough that we take money out of the equation.

Consider the CEO of Goodwill Industries. He would make a good congressman; he has plenty of on-the-ground experience in dealing with The Handicapped. But he makes three-quarters of a mil per year. You're asking a hell of a lot if you expect someone to take an 80 percent pay cut AND work in the same building as Michele Bachmann.

7. $1M a year should do it

The people we want in Congress are the people Corporate America wants for their $500k-$1m slots: smart, hardworking and well-connected. If I can get a $750,000 job and keep it as long as I do well in it, why would I try for a sub-$200k job where 90 percent of America thinks I'm worthless and the opposition party cherry picks every word I ever said and runs down every vote I ever made every two years?

The end result is we get a building full of truly worthless people like Wide Stance Larry, Michele Bachmann, Steve Stockman and Ted Cruz.

Whereas if we offered $1 million per year, people who could do good jobs in Congress would be convinced to come out and run for office.

My thesis is $165,000 is shit money for the kind of work we need...so instead of getting midlevel executives who move and shake we get ideologues who go to DC just to obstruct.